At-Large Session Reports from ICANN80

What happened?

• ICANN org revealed their modelling for the Next Round gTLD string application fee based on their interpretation of Board-approved SubPro policy recommendations.
• Current implementation cost of Next Round is estimated at US$70mil, most of which are fixed costs.
• Uncertainty remains - fee amount cannot yet be finalized due to pending consideration by the Board of IDNs-EPDP recommendations on variant application and SSAC recommendations for name collisions (NCAP).
• Community asked for more detailed breakdown of the costing done by org.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

It looks like the string application fee is going to be significantly costly. Applicant support is going to be a key factor towards the goal to expand registry pool to effectively include underserved, undeveloped / indigenous communities, small businesses, non-profit orgs as potential applicants.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

No specific action as yet. Discussion continues at session 2 and/or session 3 as we/community (i) need time to study what was presented and (ii) await more specific details from ICANN org on the way they are costing the implementation for the Next Round.

What happened?

The session began by reiterating GAC’s continued advocacy for (a) the ASP to focus on underserved regions to ensure global diversification and foster the overall quality of international representation in the new gTLD program; (b) financial support in the form of lowering application fees to ensure that resource constraints do not hinder the accessibility aspect of the new gTLD program; (c) non-financial support, such as help with preparing an application, to encourage greater rate of successful applications. The session then segued into comprehensive discussions on: (a) funding plan for the ASP and (b) outreach and engagement plan. The session highlighted the following items as topics of special interest for GAC (and provided updates on the current status of the actions taken therein): (a) Geographic Names (b) Reserved and Blocked Names; (c) GAC Advice and Early Warning (d) Private resolution of contentions sets.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session?

1. Ensuring representation of applicants (and maybe even end-user interests), particularly from underserved regions, in the new gTLD program. This can be achieved by drawing up a list of practical action items in terms of financial and non-financial support mechanisms.
   
   
2. This is where At-Large’s active participation in both the funding plan derivation and the outreach strategy becomes important.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

1. Collaborating with GAC and other stakeholders to develop funding plans for the Applicant Support Program (ASP) that address concerns related to access barriers. 
   
   
2. Actively participating in outreach and engagement efforts to ensure end-user perspectives are considered. 
   
   
3. Monitoring and providing feedback on GAC’s key topics of interests such as Geographic Names, Reserved and Blocked Names, etc.  

What happened?

This session presented the milestones of RDRS pilots over the past 6 months including success criteria, latest metrics, notable system enhancements and trends. It discussed insights of the current results for evaluation with the number of Domain Lookups as an entry door of the system. It focuses on evaluating the tools and how we might evolve with them.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

At-Large should look into the success criteria of RDRS if it successfully informs the GNSO council and ICANN Board to make decisions regarding SSAD recommendations. It gives reference on At-Large for improving communication with other groups within the ICANN community, and also improves decision-making process in consistency. RDRS is also an significant topic for At-Large to input end-user feedback that could affect the decision-making process of registrars and other relevant stakeholders (who are non-end user)

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

At-Large needs to keep updated with the issue matters and engage by reviewing and commenting on any upcoming platform or public consultations that are open for input. As end-user (consumer data) perspective is needed.

What happened?

This session discussed the next steps in the adoption of Phase 2 Initial Report of EPDP on IDNs. The EPDP started looking at the comments received, starting with the non-substantive comments. Regular meetings will resume from 27 June 2024 until the Team can close all the comments received at the report finalized. The current expected date of completion by end of October 2024.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

At-Large has earlier submitted its inputs to the public comment to the Phase 2 initial report. At this point there's nothing that At-Large needs to do from its side.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

At-Large needs to look at the status of its inputs submitted earlier when the Phase 2 Final Report is released. In the meantime, the EPDP Team from ALAC will continue to work processing the inputs received to the public comments and finalize the Phase 2 report.

What happened?

The GAC raised 9 topics for discussion with the ICANN Board:

1. GNSO Statements of Interest
2. Resolution of Contention Sets
3. Public Interest Commitments and Registry Voluntary Commitments
4. Name Collisions - NCAP Study 2and the proposed Name Collision Risk Assessment Framework, SAC 124
5. DNS Resiliency - emerging threats
6. New DNS Technologies - Blockchain, alternative root systems
7. Applicant Support in Next Round of New gTLDs
8. Registration Data Request Service (deferred)
9. Balancing of Stakeholder Interests (deferred)

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Selectively:-

1. GNSO SOI: The Board supports the GAC's position of ensuring full transparency for participation in ICANN; has asked Org to develop an Ethics Policy for community input.
2. Resolution of Contention Sets: 

• The Board spoke about GAC and ALAC Advice to disincentivize private auctions or other private means to resolve contention sets, while noting that SubPro PDP did allow JVs as a means to do so, so the Board is having to balance these 2 opposing view. positions. Although the Board agrees that private auctions should be disincentivized, this is not a straight forward issue, pointing to the NERA report/study on auctions/contention resolution for context.
• The Board also indicated that it cannot accept GAC's proposition for drawing lots to avoid forcing non-commercial applicants from competing with commercial applicants should they get put in a contention set. Because drawing lots is illegal in California and there is no clear, consistent way to determine whether a non-commercial applicant is more beneficial than a commercial applicant. 

3. Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs): The Board has resolved not to accept RVCs that involve restriction of content based on legal analysis (advice & precedents) that ICANN will likely not be permitted under its Bylaws to enforce such commitments even if the registry outsources compliance monitoring. The Board thinks that registries can make commitments for and enforce content restrictions but these cannot be in their Registry Agreement. (NB. registrant restrictions distinguished)
6. New DNS Technologies: Board-led development of ICANN's FY2026-2031 Strategic Plan is calling for more attention to be paid to understand the existence, emergence and impact of new DNS technologies on ICANN's unique identifier system eg. name collisions caused by such new DNS technologies.
7. Applicant Support Program (ASP): The Board has accepted all the SubPro recommendations on ASP, including Supplemental Recommendation 17.2 regarding non-financial resources for ASP qualifiers. A sum of US$10-16 mil has been mentioned for the ASP Funding Plan.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

• To watch out for Org's announcement on Board resolutions that were adopted at their 8 June meeting, and determine any next steps afterward.
• To participate in onward Board consultations on how to disincentivize private auctions; also regarding why a non-commercial applicant might always benefit when up against a commercial applicant.
• To participate in development of ICANN's FY2026-2031 Strategic Plan, in which 
• To participate in the SubPro IRT - ASP Sub-track in relation to the implementation of the GNSO Supplementary Recommendation 17.2, ASP Funding Plan.

What happened?

This plenary session explored how ICANN and its multi-stakeholder community can effectively participate in the ongoing and increasingly intense United Nations debates and processes related to Internet Governance. The aim is to safeguard the multi-stakeholder approach against possible shifts towards more restricted multilateral decision-making processes that could compromise the fundamental attributes of the global Internet.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Community discussions emphasized the relevance of the multistakeholder model, especially is open, inclusive, transparent, accountable, agile, adaptable, nature.

Concerns were expressed on the power asymmetries between nations, stakeholders and the need to create fair, equitably,  environment that facilitates meaningful discussions.

Concern was expressed that if we do not  ensure policies are drafted  in the public interest and in the interest of a free, open interoperable Internet, we risk losing all the hard work and benefits of the last 30 years.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

From At Large we must use all possible avenues and forms of communication with  local, regional, and global stakeholders to raise awareness of the issues being discussed and at stake, and the importance of practicing, and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model, promoting the Sao Paulo  Multistakeholder Guidelines to enhance the multistakeholder model.

Highlight ICANN's value of being able to participate in multilateral spaces, making contributions from the multi-stakeholder construction. To understand the MSHM as a geopolitical tool that allows ICANN to have a greater voice in these multilateral stages.

Click here for Session Recordings

What happened?

The GAC raised 6 major topics for discussion with the GNSO Council:

1. High Level Government Meeting - GAC Update to Council
2. GNSO Statements of Interest (SOI)
3. New gTLD Next Round
    A. Update on singular/plural issue: ICANN Org strawman
    B. Implementation Review Team (IRT) update: in particular, the proposed US$92,000 Registry Service Provider fee.
    C. Resolution of Contention Sets: private auctions.
    D. Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments.

4. Diacritics Issue update
5. WHOIS / RDAP
     A. Urgent Requests (for registration data)
     B.  Registration Data Accuracy

6. DNS Abuse Mitigation

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

The GAC is taking the approach of communicating its views and concerns on such matters which are under GNSO Council's purview as well as matters for which the GAC seeks GNSO Council's cooperation for matters under ICANN org's and/or the ICANN Board's purview.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

• To continue participating in the GNSO SubPro Small Team Plus discussions on the ICANN org strawman regarding permissibility of singular/plural strings.
• To participate in onward Board consultations and the SubPro IRT on how to disincentivize private auctions; (possibly also regarding why a non-commercial applicant might always benefit when up against a commercial applicant).

What happened?

The second IANA Naming Function Review (IFR2) is conducting the review of the IANA Function performance per the scope specified in the ICANN Bylaws. The review focuses on PTI's performance of the IANA naming function against the contractual requirements in the IANA Naming Function Contract and the IANA Naming Function Statement of Work (SoW). 

Peter Koch, and Ashley Heineman, the two Co-Chairs of the IFR2, co-chaired the session.

1. Under the review of action items, there were two action items, which are being currently tracked in the Google Sheet.
2. The meeting discussed the SoW. Inter alia, the following topics were discussed under the different sections of the spreadsheet. 

• Who is responsible within ICANN for the nontechnical aspects of DNSSEC.
• US Presence is required for the Contractor
• Scope of the IANA Naming function: Management of the DNS Root Zone per the SoW (specifically, .arpa is out of scope)
• Registration Databases: The SoW does not speak of Whois or RDAP
• Management of the .int top-level domain
• Maintenance of a repository of IDN tables and LGR
• Take on other services on the request from ICANN
• Naming service should be treated with the same importance as other services by the contractor
• The contractor must treat all customers without discrimination
• Respect for the diversity of customers
• Policy responsibility for DNSSEC and .int

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 
There are no At-Large specific takeaways from this session, but the session generally progresses the review process. 

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?
ALAC should continue to monitor and support the IFR2.

What happened?

• Briefly discussed and consideration of ICANN org and ICANN community initiatives to prevent and mitigate DNS Abuse in Africa.
• discussion on new WHOIS/Registration Data policy framework, and The ongoing operation of a Registration Data Request Service (RDRS).

The first part of the session discussed the current trends, policy and solutions of DNS Abuse. Cases presented are from The Republic of Chad, National authority of Rwanda and African Top Level Domain organisation. The last part discussed WHOIS Data Protection Policy background, urgent requests for disclosure of registration data, and RDRS with impact of privacy/ proxy services. It highlighted the importance of data protection policy. 

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

• DNSAbuse impacts the Internet end user community, including the undermining of trust and security.
• Collectively work to increase the global Internet community’s understanding of the DNS abuse ecosystem and what mitigation and disruption practices best contribute to a safer online environment.
• The adoption of such collectives’ measures will be seen as an important contribution to the work of ICANN ahead of the next application process for New gTLDs.

At-Large should look into various good practices from the presentations e.g .potential of the younger economy on how they tackle DNS abuse. While means are getting complicated, accuracy on identifying the type of abuse is more important. We need the right tools for the right problems’ root causes. 

While African Top Level Domain organisation focus on the local Internet value chain and sustaining automated system. At-Large may reflect on how we respond : do we regard this practice suitable? And for who? 

It is rare to relate DNS Abuse problems with the Financial sector, and this may increase awareness and engage more stakeholders. 

The core work of WHOIS is to keep information accessible for security purposes. (Something to be done) to help end users decide whether to trust in a certain domain. The user metrix is giving insights from data on what was happening and why something did not work out well as expected. 

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

• May required capacity building and awareness for At-Large community on DNS abuse and mitigation, and joint conversation with GAC for inputs.

At-Large needs to continue to keep the community updated with trends of DNS abuse and share good practices around the community. We could leverage ICANN strength and maintain engagement (e.g. capacity building) 

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to...

What happened?

The GNSO-TPR working group continued the "tuning" of text for the proposed recommendations based on input from the Registrar Stakeholder Group (RrSG).

ICANN Org proposed a new ordering of the recommendations in order to make the recommendations more in-line with a transfer process. Consensus in the WG to use the new ordering but link to the previous.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

The proposed new text and the reordering of the recommendations are OK.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

At-Large will continue actively in the GNSO-TPR meeting. The final report will be ready for public comments in August 2024.

What happened?

ccNSO's session of the ccNSO Universal Acceptance Committee (UAC), focusing on its work plan and promoting the use of its library and mailing list.

The UAC also discussed the relevance of Universal Acceptance Day  for ccTLDs, survey results, and next steps to explore ccTLD readiness for the UA.

UA Day 2024 Statistics were displayed, showing more than 133 events of different types, taking place in more than 65 countries.

Tentative UA Day 2025 timeline was presented.

Results of survey available in: idnworldreport.eu

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Most of the UA Day events were organized by different ALSes in each of the participating countries and of course promoted for end users.

At-Large representatives can advocate for the development and implementation of end users solutions to Universal Acceptance challenges, ensuring that the needs and experiences of individual Internet users are considered in policy discussions and technical standards development.

At-Large members can provide input on the planning process for UA Day 2025, suggesting ideas for activities and initiatives that would resonate with individual Internet users and help advance UA principles.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

At-Large members can contribute to advancing Universal Acceptance principles by raising awareness, providing feedback, and actively participating in initiatives aimed at addressing universal acceptance challenges from the perspective of individual Internet users.

What happened?

• ICANN Org presented the 2012 Round of ICANN Auctions of Last Resort Process, including the number of auctions of last resort, the wining bid range and what the auction proceeds was used for.
• ICANN Org presented on SubPro Recommendation 17.5 approved by the Board; which provides for a bid credit, multiplier, or other similar mechanism to be applied to a bid submitted by an ASP-qualified applicant which is caught by a contention set and chooses to participate in an ICANN Auction of Last Resort to resolve that contention set.
  • Context for Rec 17.5: ALAC's proposal submitted through public comment that 'an applicant qualified to receive Applicant Support (ASP) should be given priority in any string contention' was considered and modified to read; "increase the chances of applicants qualified to receive Applicant Support winning at the auction". For this to be achieved, it was recommended that a bid credit, multiplier or other similar mechanism would be applied to any bids submitted by ASP-qualified applicants. 
• ICANN Org presented two different mechanisms for implementing a bid credit, multiplier or other similar mechanism to increase the probability that ASP-qualified would win their gTLD string in the auction process:- a) Post-bidding winning adjustments - Bid credits. b) Pre-bidding discount calculation - Set-asides. 

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

• It is clear that the discussion on a bid credit, multiplier or other similar mechanism is intrinsically linked to the discussion on auctions in that the timing and nature of the ICANN Auction (when bids are placed, whether the auction is an increasing-price auction etc) are key factors which would impact the efficacy of a bid credit, multiplier or other similar mechanism.
• Notwithstanding, it is as yet unclear which of the proposed 2 options would better achieve the goal of increasing the chances of ASP-qualified applicants winning at an auction.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

• At-Large needs to closely follow the discussion on the proposed options of a bid credit or set-asides for ASP-qualified applicants, and study/understand the ramifications of each option.
• At-Large should also closely monitor discussions on the auction process which would determine the nature of ICANN Auctions.
• At-Large needs to develop/make a submission (through the SubPro IRT in the interim) on the 2 proposed options of a) Post-bidding winning adjustments - Bid credits. b) Pre-bidding discount calculation - Set-asides, whether elements of either could be taken up to achieve the goal of increasing the chances of ASP-qualified applicants winning at an auction. 

What happened?

ccNSO session was about analyzing and investigating potential gaps in the ccNSO Policy Framework regarding the Delegation, Transfer, Revocation, and Retirement of Country Code Top-Level Domains (ccTLDs). This session follows up on a similar discussion held during ICANN79.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

There are no At-Large specific takeaways from this session, but the session generally progresses the review process. 

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Continue to monitor developments in ccNSO policy frameworks and provide feedback on proposed changes to ensure that they align with the interests and needs of At-Large internet users.

Promote capacity building initiatives within the At-Large community to enhance understanding of ccNSO policy 

What happened?

Click here to view a curated version of the meeting agenda.

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Click here to view a summary report.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

None at this point.

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to...

What happened?

Example: This session discussed....

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

Example: At-Large is interested in...

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Example: At-Large needs to...

What happened?

This 3rd session of the IRT concentrated on 2 topics:

• RSP Evaluation Fee and gTLD Evaluation Fee
• Predictability Framework (and by extension, the Standing Predictability Implementation Review Team draft charter)

What are the At-Large specific takeaways from this session? 

The level of fees are of concern, and risks being unaffordable by potential applicants that we would like to see apply for a gTLD, even with Applicant Support.

What are the At-Large specific action items (next steps)?

Awaiting for more details to be shared by ICANN org on how they have developed their budgets and costings to derive the 2 fees.